european centre for nature conservation
ECNC Publication technical report series
ISBN 90-76762-11-2
Biodiversity indicators and monitoring
Moving towards implementation
Author: Ben Delbaere
B IODIVERSITY
INDICATORS AND MONITORING :
MOVING TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION
th
Proceedings of a side event held at the 6 Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, 10 April 2002, The Hague, The Netherlands
Ben Delbaere (ECNC)
in cooperation with Ulla Pinborg (EEA) and Melanie Heath (BirdLife International)
With contributions by:
Dr Jan Plesník (AOPK, Czech Republic)
Dr Anne Franklin (RBINS, Belgium)
Ben ten Brink (RIVM, the Netherlands)
Dr Tor-Björn Larsson (EEA)
Kevin Parris (OECD)
Published by:
ECNC, Tilburg, the Netherlands
This publication was made possible with financial support from
UNEP/Regional Office for Europe.
Prepared by:
European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Copyright:
© 2002 European Centre for Nature Conservation
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, for resale or other
commercial purposes without the prior written permission of ECNC.
Citation:
Delbaere, B. (2002) Biodiversity indicators and monitoring: Moving
towards implementation. Proceedings of a side event held at CBD/COP6.
(ECNC Technical report series). ECNC, Tilburg, The
Netherlands/Budapest, Hungary. 35 pp + annexes.
ISBN:
90-76762-11-2
Printed by:
Tilburg University Drukkerij, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Cover design:
Project V, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Cover photograph:
Saxifraga Foundation/Ronald Buskens (Extremadura, Spain)
Available from:
European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC)
Headquarters – Tilburg
PO Box 1352
5004 BJ Tilburg
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 13 466 32 40 / Fax: +31 13 466 32 50
Email: [email protected]
http://www.ecnc.nl
Disclaimer:
The views expressed by the contributors do not necessarily constitute
ECNC policy. The views expressed in this publication are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the funder.
2
Published by:
ECNC, Tilburg, the Netherlands
This publication was made possible with financial support from
UNEP/Regional Office for Europe.
Prepared by:
European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Copyright:
© 2002 European Centre for Nature Conservation
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, for resale or other
commercial purposes without the prior written permission of ECNC.
Citation:
Delbaere, B. (2002) Biodiversity indicators and monitoring: Moving
towards implementation. Proceedings of a side event held at CBD/COP6.
(ECNC Technical report series). ECNC, Tilburg, The
Netherlands/Budapest, Hungary. 35 pp + annexes.
ISBN:
90-76762-11-2
Printed by:
Tilburg University Drukkerij, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Cover design:
Project V, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Cover photograph:
Saxifraga Foundation/Ronald Buskens (Extremadura, Spain)
Available from:
European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC)
Headquarters – Tilburg
PO Box 1352
5004 BJ Tilburg
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 13 466 32 40 / Fax: +31 13 466 32 50
Email: [email protected]
http://www.ecnc.nl
Disclaimer:
The views expressed by the contributors do not necessarily constitute
ECNC policy. The views expressed in this publication are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the funder.
3
Contents
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Chapter 1: Progress of work to date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The global level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Other global indicator developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The pan-European level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The European Union level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The national level in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter 2: Indicators and Clearing-House Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Chapter 3: The COP6 side event on indicators and monitoring:
Case studies from Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
The CBD process and national level indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
National example of indicator use: Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Building national and regional consensus for biodiversity indicators: Important Bird Areas
- a case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Regional cooperation: the European Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicator Framework (EBMI-F) . . 24
Indices: The example of the Natural Capital Index - potential and problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Indicator-based reporting by EEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Sectoral integration: OECD agri-biodiversity indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Outcome of the side event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Chapter 4: Further steps towards implementing indicators and monitoring . . . . . . . . 32
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Annex 1: Meeting agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Annex 2: Contact details of speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Annex 3: Acronyms and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4
Preface
The side event ‘Towards implementing biodiversity indicators and monitoring: case studies from
Europe’ was organised jointly by the European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC) and the
European Environment Agency (EEA) in cooperation with BirdLife International on 10 April 2002 at
the 6th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD/COP6) in The
Hague, The Netherlands. It provided an overview of the state of affairs on biodiversity indicators and
stimulated discussion on implementation and monitoring at national and international levels in Europe.
The event was timely, because it provided a platform for summarising Europe’s efforts in the field over
the past few years and for linking this regional level to the global level of the Convention on Biological
Diversity. Clearly, indicators and monitoring of biodiversity are an important topic in recent political
discussions, which was illustrated at the event by the large number of participants. Some 80 people
attended the meeting, representing a wide range of stakeholders: intergovernmental organisations,
national delegates, non-governmental organisations, and government agencies.
ECNC wishes to thank UNEP’s Regional Office for Europe for providing financial support to prepare
and organise this side event and to ensure that its output is disseminated by means of the current
publication and via the ECNC web site at www.ecnc.nl.
The organisers want to thank Dr Jan Plesník, Chair of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical
and Technological Advice of the Convention, for chairing the meeting and for bringing its
recommendations to the COP6 plenary session on identification, monitoring, indicators and
assessments. We are also grateful to the other speakers who kindly accepted the invitation to present
their work and views at the event: Dr Anne Franklin (RBINS, Belgium), Ben ten Brink (RIVM, the
Netherlands), Dr Tor-Björn Larsson (EEA), and Dr Philip Bagnoli (OECD).
Thank you also to ECNC colleagues Jeremy Roberts for his logistical support in organising the side
event, to Catherine Cruveillier-Cassagne for her constructive input and participation in the event, to
Rob Wolters for critically reviewing this document, and to Victoria Freeman and Gillian Heslop for
copy editing and designing the publication.
The authors
Ben Delbaere
Senior Programme Coordinator – Biodiversity and Landscapes
European Centre for Nature conservation
Ulla Pinborg
Project Manager for Nature and Biodiversity
European Environment Agency
Melanie Heath
Head of Science
BirdLife International
5
Introduction
The topic of indicators and monitoring of biodiversity has received increasing attention in recent years,
not only at the global level, amongst others through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), but
also at the European and national level. Despite the efforts that have been made to develop sound
indicator sets and monitoring schemes, there is still a big discrepancy between the scientific
development and policy requirements.
This publication aims at providing a brief state of affairs of biodiversity indicators and monitoring at the
various geographical levels. It illustrates that a lot has happened already and that it is time to
implement most of what is available to date, so as to respond to the urgent policy requirements on
assessing effectiveness of biodiversity policies around the globe. This is in line with the overall
message from the CBD’s 6th Conference of the Parties (CBD/COP6): it is time to move from policy
dialogue to implementing what has been agreed. The publication provides the outcome of the side
event ‘Towards implementing biodiversity indicators and monitoring in Europe: case studies from
Europe’.
In this publication Chapter 1 provides a summary of progress to date on indicator development and
monitoring at various geographical levels, starting at the global level and zooming in to the national
level. In Chapter 2, the linkage between indicators, monitoring and Clearing-House Mechanisms is
highlighted. Chapter 3 contains summaries of the presentations at the side event as case studies in
Europe, as well as conclusions and recommendations from the side event based on the chapters
presented before. Chapter 4 provides a look into the future by looking at how recommendations may
be taken forward.
6
Chapter 1: Progress of work to date
The global level
Convention on Biological Diversity
At the global level the development of biodiversity indicators and monitoring is rooted in the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) through its Article 7 on Identification and Monitoring (Box 1).
Box 1: CBD Article 7. Identification and Monitoring
Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, in particular for the purposes of Articles 8
to 10:
a.
Identify components of biological diversity important for its conservation and sustainable use having
regard to the indicative list of categories set down in Annex I;
b.
Monitor, through sampling and other techniques, the components of biological diversity identified
pursuant to subparagraph (a) above, paying particular attention to those requiring urgent
conservation measures and those which offer the greatest potential for sustainable use;
c.
Identify processes and categories of activities which have or are likely to have significant adverse
impacts on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and monitor their effects
through sampling and other techniques; and
d.
Maintain and organize, by any mechanism data, derived from identification and monitoring activities
pursuant to subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) above
The process of developing national indicator and monitoring programmes is guided by a work
programme that has been endorsed at the third meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific,
Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA, Montreal, 1997) in recommendation III/5. The
implementation of this work programme has received an impetus through Decision V/7 of the Fifth
Conference of the Parties to the CBD (Nairobi, 2000). This decision specifically requested the
Executive Secretary of the CBD to carry out the pending activities set out in the work programme on
indicators of biological diversity and produce an interim progress report on these activities and on
ongoing work on indicators in the thematic areas and other work programmes for consideration of
SBSTTA before COP6.
Document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/12 responds to this request by designing a set of principles and key
questions for national-level monitoring programmes and indicators and by providing a synthesis of
responses to a questionnaire by the Executive Secretary of the CBD on available and potential
indicators used by Parties and other governments.
Box 2 provides an overview of the COP decisions and SBSTTA recommendations that relate to
indicators and monitoring up to and including COP5. Further background is available from the CBD
1
web site .
1
http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/indicators/default.asp
7
Box 2: COP decisions and SBSTTA recommendations of most relevance to indicators and monitoring
•
CBD-COP Decision III/10: Identification, monitoring and assessment
•
CBD-COP Decision IV/1: Report and recommendations of the third meeting of SBSTTA, and
instructions by the COP to SBSTTA
•
CBD-COP Decision V/7: Identification, monitoring and assessment, and indicators
•
CBD-SBSTTA Recommendation II/1
•
CBD-SBSTTA Recommendation III/5: Current approaches to indicator development and
recommendations for a preliminary core set of indicators of biological diversity, particularly those
related to threats, and options for capacity-building in developing countries in the application of
guidelines and indicators for subsequent national reports
•
CBD-SBSTTA Recommendation III/9: Recommendations for a core set of indicators of biological
diversity
•
CBD-SBSTTA Recommendation V/12: Development of indicators of biological diversity
•
CBD-SBSTTA Recommendation VII/11: Designing national-level monitoring programmes and indicators
Ongoing reporting efforts in the CBD framework include the Global Environment Outlook series
(GEO3 was published in May 2002), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (due for publication in
2006) and the Global Biodiversity Outlook, of which the first report was published in November 2001.
Other global indicator developments
Document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/12 also reports on the progress made in indicator development for
various thematic and other work programmes. In summary the following information was provided:
•
for forests nine regional and international processes have developed criteria and
indicators. International coordination, development and implementation of these is
carried out by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO);
•
for agricultural biodiversity the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) leads the indicator development (OECD, 2002), whereas FAO, in
collaboration with the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), leads on
indicators for genetic resources;
•
one work plan on physical degradation and destruction of coral reefs and one on coral
bleaching are under development for marine and coastal biodiversity, including work
on indicators. A Memorandum of Cooperation and joint work plan between the CBD
Secretariat and the Global International Water Assessment (GIWA) is due to be
finalised;
•
indicators are one of the priorities in the joint work programme on dry and sub-humid
lands by the SCBD and the Secretariat of the International Convention to Combat
Desertification (ICCD);
•
as regards scientific assessments the identification or development of criteria and
indicators for those topics in assessment process will be included in a programme
currently under development;
•
the Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI) plans to provide input for the development of a
menu of indicators in thematic areas and to support the development of national
monitoring and indicator programmes;
8
•
in document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/13 the CBD Executive Secretary identified regional
cooperation to develop criteria and indicators as an element necessary for the
incorporation of biological diversity into environmental impact assessment;
•
and finally, for climate change the development of recommendations on criteria and
indicators are included in the terms of reference of an ad hoc technical expert group on
climate change and biological diversity.
A multitude of other initiatives and processes are underway in terms of developing indicators and
monitoring programmes. Examples include the work by the World Resources Institute, IUCN the
World Conservation Union, the World Wide Fund for Nature, BirdLife International and Wetlands
International.
The pan-European level
Many initiatives have been taken in Europe as regards developing biodiversity-related indicators and
monitoring programmes. Various reports cover aspects of biodiversity at the European scale.
However, regular Europe-wide reports focusing on the state and trends of biodiversity as a whole do
not exist. Biodiversity has so far been part of the reporting to the ministerial conferences within the
‘Environment for Europe’ process of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE,
next in Kyiv, May 2003). Forest biodiversity issues are part of the Ministerial Conferences for the
Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) and will continue to be so. The Declaration of the latest
‘Environment for Europe’ ministerial conference (Aarhus, 1998) called for closer cooperation in the
field of biodiversity monitoring.
This challenge was taken up under the framework of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape
Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) and more specifically in the so-called Riga-process. The topic of
st
monitoring, reporting and indicators was one out of six key issues on the agenda of the 1
2
‘Biodiversity in Europe’ intergovernmental conference, held in Riga (Latvia) in 2000 . Further follow-up
on the pan-European policy level was given at the 2
nd
‘Biodiversity in Europe’ intergovernmental
3
conference (Budapest, Hungary, February 2002) at which indicators were one of the five key topics
for discussion. A background paper, prepared by the European Commission with EEA and ECNC,
provided the basis for discussion and formulated recommendations from Europe to COP6 (European
Commission, 2002).
Following the request of the Aarhus ministerial conference and a decision of the PEBLDS Council,
ECNC and EEA developed a proposal for a European Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicator
Framework – EBMI-F – in 2001 in consultation with key stakeholders in Europe. The proposal was
welcomed as a good example by the sixth PEBLDS Council (Budapest, February 2002). It follows the
key recommendations formulated in the discussion paper on ‘Biodiversity indicators, monitoring and
st
reporting’, prepared by the Government of Latvia in cooperation with ECNC and EEA for the 1
‘Biodiversity in Europe’ conference. EBMI-F also responds to the plea for increased regional
cooperation as expressed in Decision V/7 of COP5. (See also Chapter 2)
2
3
http://www.strategyguide.org/rigaconf.html
http://www.strategyguide.org/budaconf.html
9
In parallel, forest biodiversity issues form an increasing part of the TBFRA (Temperate and Boreal
Forest Resources Assessment) reports (10-year intervals, most recently published in 2000), led by
the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Biodiversity issues are also part of the regular
Environmental Signals by EEA (e.g. EEA, 2002a) and they are the focus of ECNC’s ‘Facts & Figures
on Europe’s biodiversity’ reporting (Delbaere, 1998).
A descriptive report on Europe’s biodiversity by biogeographical regions is under way by EEA. The
report for the Mediterranean region was published on the EEA web site in May 2002. For the high
4
level conference on Agriculture and Biodiversity under PEBLDS (Paris, June 2002 ) several
documents were produced on the state of biodiversity and its relationship with agriculture.
At the level of the Council of Europe and the Bern Convention, monitoring activities are clustered into
two categories: ‘in concreto’ and ‘in abstracto’ (Ortuño, 2001). In concreto the practical
implementation of the Bern Convention can be reviewed on a case study basis by the examination of
case files in the local context of habitats and endangered species in a given geographical area.
Usually, the opening of a case file follows a complaint by an NGO, an individual, or a group of
individuals. In case of difficulty or doubt as to the measures to be taken in a particular case the
Convention’s Standing Committee may ask an expert appointed by the Secretary General of the
Council of Europe to carry out an on-the-spot appraisal. In abstracto a designated reporting system is
provided by the Convention, which serves the monitoring of the Convention’s implementation by its
Parties.
Several of the international NGOs and networks have initiated European-wide coordinated efforts for
specific monitoring and/or reports in their own field of expertise (e.g. BirdLife International, ECNC,
IUCN, Wetlands International). Some other societies have provided the basis for European monitoring
by publishing European distribution atlases (e.g. Societas Europaea Mammalogica, Societas
Europaea Herpetologica and the Mapping European Butterflies project). A database on reporting
obligations for EU countries exists at EEA.
Collaboration in the field of indicators and monitoring is increasing and sees some convergance, for
example the work on agri-environmental indicators (e.g. OECD, European Commission, EEA and
ECNC); forest related indicators (several initiatives: existing TBFRA (FAO) and ongoing MCPFE);
fisheries, and the core set of biodiversity indicators under development by EEA. An informal
international working group for coordination and collaboration on biodiversity monitoring and
indicators (IWG Bio-MIN) is being set up by EEA in support of its work on the core set of indicators
and on developing a European site-based monitoring network.
To contribute to the development of the above core set of biodiversity indicators and a monitoring
network, ECNC carried out a survey for the European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and
Biodiversity (ETC/NPB, part of the EEA) of progress to date in this field at the international level. The
final report on indicators (EEA, 2002b) lists hundreds of indicators and tens of initiatives that develop
or implement biodiversity-related indicators. The same multiplicity comes out of a survey of monitoring
networks, which is due to be finalised by the end of 2002. This also shows the great need for
coordination and synergy at the European level.
4
http://www.nature.coe.int/english/cadres/agric.htm
10
The existing organisational frames for coordination in Europe (such as the Environment for Europe
process and PEBLDS) have no overall or pan-European direct mandates to create a common binding
reporting mechanism. Nevertheless they and several other frameworks, organisations or collaborative
networks are in a position to agree on and enhance collaboration and coordination across Europe.
These networks encompass both the conventions related directly to Europe, the UN bodies, the
Council of Europe, the European Commission and EEA, and several governmental and nongovernmental organisations and collaborative networks.
The background paper to the Budapest conference ‘Biodiversity in Europe’ formulated a number of
key points that may help in advancing the work on indicators and monitoring in Europe:
•
there is a need to analyse priority objectives for biodiversity conservation by national
and international authorities in terms of measurability and suitability for monitoring.
Those authorities that have no measurable biodiversity conservation objectives are
urged to formulate them;
•
the core set of biodiversity indicators, under development by the EEA, should form a
basis for review by national and international organisations on their national and
international feasibility on the basis of generally agreed upon criteria and policy
questions. This should lead to a set of indicators that can be applied in the short term by
many countries and organisations and a set that needs further development in terms of
concept, data availability and flow coordination and consideration on policy-relevance;
•
the proposed European Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicator Framework should act as
the European regional forum on indicators and monitoring, herewith responding to point
four of COP Decision V/7.
The chairman’s conclusions of the Budapest conference reiterated these key points as follows:
•
25. In response to Decision V/7 of the Conference of the Parties and SBSTTA
Recommendation VII/11, regional cooperation and synergy between national, regional
and global indicator developments should be promoted, with a view to enhancing
comparability and efficiency of biodiversity monitoring programmes. In this respect the
European Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicator Framework (EBMI-F) can serve as an
example of a regional coordination effort.
•
28. In line with Recommendation VII/11 of SBSTTA, the CBD/COP-6 should invite the
Parties and relevant organisations and processes to report to the CBD/COP-7 on the
development of national-level monitoring systems and sets of indicators for biodiversity;
and in line with Recommendation VII/2 of SBSTTA, the Parties should welcome the
development of improved biodiversity assessment methods and processes.
There is one problematic yet fundamental issue on the way towards obtaining the best indicators and
hence influencing monitoring and coordination of data flows so as to produce the necessary data: it is
the difficulty in getting from science to practical policy implementation, i.e. to apply science in a policy
world. This has also been demonstrated by lively discussions during an electronic conference
organised by the Belgian Presidency of the EU in support of the EC’s work in this field ('Biodiversity
5
conservation in theory & practice', November 2001) .
5
http://www.biodiversity.be/bbpf/
11
The European Union level
At the level of the EU the first national report to the CBD (European Commission, 1998a) is a report
that concerns the implementation by the European Community institutions. The EC Biodiversity
Strategy (European Commission, 1998b) and its accompanying Action Plans (European Commission,
2001a) adopted by European Parliament on 14 March 2002) stress the importance of indicators to
monitor progress in implementing European policy. Several initiatives are ongoing in support of the
Action Plans or other programmes. The development of implementation indicators for the Action Plans
is foreseen to be carried out by EEA as from 2002.
Also, other EU policy instruments related to biodiversity often call for the development of sectoral
th
indicators. For example, the 6 Environment Action Programme (European Commission, 2001b), the
framework for the EU’s environmental policy until 2010, calls for indicators that can be used to monitor
the effectiveness of measures taken, including to integrate environmental concerns into other sectoral
policies. It suggests indicators that could be used to measure the state of biodiversity in Europe. It
also asks for the development of ‘headline indicators’ that are required to track progress in an
aggregated way under the main themes of the Programme. The Commission is developing such
headline indicators this year.
Likewise, the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (European Commission, 2001c) sets out clear
long-term objectives for the European Union, including for protecting biodiversity. One of the
measures foreseen here is the establishment of a set of biodiversity indicators by the Commission by
2003. In addition the development of ‘headline performance indicators’ is called for, highly aggregated
indicators which will serve the reporting on progress made to the annual Spring European Council.
In the agri-environmental field, indicators have been proposed to monitor the integration of
environmental concerns into the EU agricultural policy (European Commission, 2000). Finally, EEA
will also develop agri-environmental indicators over the coming years, together with the EC’s
Directorate-General Agriculture, Environment, Eurostat and Joint Research Centre.
The national level in Europe
Overview
The document ‘Indicators and Environmental Impact Assessment’, presented to the seventh meeting
of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-7), provided an
analysis of the use of indicators by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Although
only 32 countries had replied to a questionnaire by the CBD Secretariat by 10 August 2001 (less than
one fifth of all CBD Parties) the document listed 238 indicators that are actually in use by one or more
countries. These were grouped in five classes: general, forestry biodiversity, agricultural biodiversity,
inland waters, and coastal and marine biodiversity.
Of the respondents, fourteen are European Parties6. However, more countries in Europe, such as
Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden, are in the process of developing and/or
using biodiversity indicators, as demonstrated in this paper. The conclusion of the SBSTTA document
6
Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland,
Turkey, and United Kingdom
12
is that no country has a complete list and that indicator development is an ongoing process. This
conclusion is still valid, even when considering more countries. In many countries, however, the
biodiversity indicator sets are developed and published as part of broader environmental or
sustainability indicator sets and reports and may not be recognisable as such.
Criteria for selecting indicators are generally accepted, with slight deviations between countries and
between regions. The criteria (or principles) listed by SBSTTA are listed below:
•
relevance to the objectives of the Convention;
•
management and policy relevance;
•
user-driven nature;
•
relevance to target audience;
•
technical features (such as scientific soundness, data availability, aggregation,
financially affordable, sensitive to pressures, have a long life-span).
Criteria that may be added should relate to the possibility for country benchmarking and comparability, the
inclusion of country-specific aspects of biodiversity, as well as the integration with sectors and data flows.
In support of indicator development, a general framework and understanding of the process of
bringing environmental information from the field to the decision makers has been developed and has
gained wide acceptance. A commonly used framework to structure indicators is the DPSIR framework
(Driving force – Pressure – State – Impact – Response), which is operational and applied at the
international and national level as guidance. Each component of such framework leads to discussions
and developments in their own right, with the aim to contribute to a better understanding of the state
of, and trends in, biodiversity and how policy is acting upon this.
In terms of monitoring and reporting, development has proceeded more swiftly. Although not always
indicator-based, most countries have a regular reporting cycle in terms of State of the Environment
reports or State of Biodiversity/Nature reports. An analysis of the CBD web site reveals that 40 out of
the 55 UNECE member countries had submitted a First National Report to the CBD by 27 May 2002
and 27 countries had submitted a Second National Report. CBD reporting activities have been
reviewed in terms of the integration of biodiversity considerations into other sectors, based on a
review of the first national reports to the CBD (Drucker & Damarad, 2000).
Apart from the CBD reporting process, countries have several biodiversity-related reporting
obligations arising from the international or regional conventions, agreements, directives or
regulations, which are in place or which will come into force in the next years (e.g. NATURA 2000).
While the global UN conventions at the moment strive towards a common reporting format (not
common reports), such effort for reporting on Europe-focused conventions is not yet developed. At
the EU level, the Reporting Directive is a step in this direction, although not part of the UN initiative.
Analysis of the national indicator activities
When reviewing national action in European countries, the following observations can be made:
•
most countries carry out regular biodiversity reporting, mostly in compliance to specific
conventions and other legal instruments. Often, such reporting is not based on a fixed
set of indicators;
•
good examples of operational indicator sets are available in some countries. Exchange of
information and expertise will support other countries to learn from these examples;
13
•
countries work in too much isolation when developing indicators or monitoring
programmes. This prevents national reporting from being used for regional and global
aggregation and for comparison;
•
lack of data hampers use of certain indicators, and available indicators are often too
focused on specific instruments or initiatives and lack general policy relevance;
•
the wide range of individual indicators does not enhance simplicity in bringing over a
message. Efforts for aggregated indices are scarce. An example of this includes the
Natural Capital Index as developed by the Netherlands (see also Chapter 3), which
combines quality and quantity parameters and is scale-independent, but which does not
allow for direct comparison of countries or aggregations at regional or other levels directly;
•
most indicators proposed and used so far are state indicators. Indicators reflecting political
measures and effectiveness or linking to sectoral pressures are limited;
•
efforts are being made at the global (CBD) and European level to enhance coordination
and synergy, as formulated in the conclusions of the intergovernmental conference
‘Biodiversity in Europe’ (Budapest, 2002).
Use of indicators for country comparison
One of the purposes of using national biodiversity indicators at the international level is for country
benchmarking, i.e. for comparing one country against other countries. A number of – mainly global –
organisations publish biodiversity indicators for many countries on a regular basis. Examples include
the ‘World Resources’ series (published jointly by UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank and WRI since
1986), the OECD Environmental Performance Reviews and UNEP’s Global Biodiversity Outlook.
A selection of national biodiversity indicators that are in use in Europe is presented for some countries
in Table 1. The data presented in this table illustrate some of the shortcomings of using national
indicators for comparing countries, as described further.
Table 1: Comparison of a limited selection of biodiversity indicators for some countries in Europe, demonstrating
the shortcomings of indicators for country benchmarking (see accompanying text for interpretation).
Country
% of land area
nationally protected (a)
No. of mammal
species per
10,000 km2 (b)
No. of SPEC breeding
bird species (c)
No. of diurnal
butterfly species
(d)
NBI (e)
Albania
2.9
48
135
175
0.531
Andorra
?
?
66
133
?
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
7.6
59
?
?
0.559
29.2
41
114
195
0.469
5.5
49
?
?
0.534
Belarus
6.3
27
120
131
0.368
Belgium
2.8
40
94
106
0.445
Bosnia-Herzegovina
0.5
42
?
184
0.532
Bulgaria
4.5
37
140
202
0.493
Croatia
7.4
43
130
183
0.538
Cyprus
?
?
46
?
0.451
3.3
45
?
202
0.510
…
Yugoslavia
Comment and sources: (a) IUCN management categories I-V (UNDP et al. 2000); (b) values are standardised using a speciesarea curve (UNDP et al., 2000); (c) Species of European Conservation Concern categories 1-4 (Tucker & Heath 1994); (d)
extracted from information presented in van Swaay & Warren (1999); (e) National Biodiversity Index (SCBD, 2001); ? = no data
provided
14
The following observations as regards the use of indicators for country comparison can be made from
analysing table 1:
Observation 1: the five indicators presented are very different from each other and cannot be
compared one against the other. For each indicator, limitations for its use for country benchmarking
are outlined below:
a
the indicator on protected areas is a response indicator. It gives an indication of how
committed authorities and the public are in protecting nature, but it gives no indication of
the value of the protected biodiversity itself (although one may assume that biodiversity
value in these areas is higher than average). Also, between countries, the protection
level for the protected areas may differ and even within countries this indicator is
susceptible to political changes (e.g. change of designation type from ‘protected forest’ to
‘protected nature reserve’ may change the indicator value but not the actual area
protected);
b
the indicator on mammal species is an attempt to rule out size dependency when
using species numbers per country by standardising the area unit. However, plotting the
number of species per 10,000 km2 against the country’s total surface area shows a
negative correlation. This may be due to a wrong assumption when applying the area
correction (e.g. all countries bigger than 200,000 km2 have less than 30 species per
10,000 km2, most countries smaller than 200,000 km2 have between 35 and 60 species
per unit area). In addition, this indicator makes no distinction between species in terms of
their conservation value;
c
the indicator on numbers of bird species overcomes the previous argument in that it
includes a conservation value, an important factor when defining indicators with policy
relevance (the indicator value used can be further subdivided by SPEC category).
However, the values for the indicator are, not surprisingly, positively correlated to the
country surface area (the bigger the country, the more breeding bird species) and they
reflect biogeographic differences between European regions. Yet, data on Species of
European Conservation Concern can be used to generate meaningful indices based on
change in threat status or populations size over time (see further);
d
for the indicator on diurnal butterfly species both previous two comments are valid:
the indicator values are dependent on country size and no distinction is made in terms of
conservation value. This indicator merely reflects a physical-geographical gradient in
Europe with Southern and Eastern Europe having more butterfly species richness than
Northern and Atlantic Europe;
e
the same observation can be made when looking at the values for the National
Biodiversity Index (NBI). This NBI is based on estimates of country richness and
endemism in four terrestrial vertebrate classes and vascular plants. The index values
range between 0.000 and 1.000 (SCBD, 2001). Figure 1 illustrates that the NBI in
general increases when going southwards and eastwards. This is because this index is
based on species numbers alone and does not take into account extent of natural areas
or the naturalness of habitats. Therefore Nordic countries rank relatively low in this index,
despite their large semi-natural areas.
Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the selected indicators in terms of country comparison.
15
Table 2: Main characteristics of a selection of five indicators in relation to their use for country
comparison
Indicator
Position in
DPSIR frame
Scale dependency
Definition comments
Conservation
value
% of land area nationally protected
Response
indicator
Independent
Definition varies by
country
Included
No. of mammal species per 10,000 km2
State
Dependent
/
Not included
No. of SPEC breeding bird species
State
Dependent
/
Included
No. of diurnal butterfly species
State
Dependent
/
Not included
NBI
State
Dependent
Only based on species
numbers
Not included
Figure 1: Distribution of National Biodiversity Index in Europe (based on data derived from SCBD 2001)
Observation 2: Table 1 shows a number of cells with question marks, illustrating that for the countries
concerned no data were provided in the sources used for compiling the table. The reason for this lack
of data is not always clear from the sources (e.g. data not collected, not accessible, countries were
late or unwilling to provide data). This table provides a selection of the best available data. If
indicators based on other data, such as invertebrates, bryophytes or specific habitats had been
selected, then many more gaps would be found.
Observation 3: The suitability of the selected indicators for indicating biodiversity value may be
arguable, as shown above. Whatever their value for that purpose, none of the indicators shown
16
(except perhaps the first one on protected areas) can be used to show a linkage with a certain
pressure or driving force. Based on these figures and their trends alone, it is not possible to give a
sensible answer to why such trends are being observed at the national level. Additional indicators on
such pressures and driving forces will always be necessary to answer such questions or to measure
the efficiency of policy measures. Of course, the latter must also be linkable to the former, in a logical
way. What is therefore needed is a logical tree linking field indicators back to measures (policy,
programme), as well as further research on cause-effect relations between pressures and biodiversity
value.
In conclusion, the observations made above show that the indicators presented in Table 1 cannot be
used to compare countries with each other.
Monitoring of change
Despite the non-suitability of the selected indicators for comparing one country against another, the
indicators presented have high value for monitoring the status of biodiversity within a country over
time, assuming that the monitoring methods for the indicators concerned do not vary over time. In
general terms, it can be said that if any of the listed indicator values would decrease in a significant
way, this would give an indication of a downward trend of (an aspect of) biodiversity in the country
concerned. Likewise, the indicators are very important to show trends over time at the European level.
The information derived from the change of the status (‘trend indicator’) is more suitable for assessing
policy effectiveness or for comparing countries (e.g. butterfly diversity in country X has decreased
most since year Y compared to other countries). In this light it is interesting to mention here the
upcoming development of ‘similarity indicators’ that may be used for comparing countries on an
international scale (e.g. 65 % of Europe’s countries show an overall positive trend in their species
populations in agro-ecosystems and 35 % show a negative trend). Such indicators are potentially very
valuable in terms of indicating responses and awareness of governments (e.g. number of countries
that have developed a red list and the percentage of species per threat category within the red lists by
country).
The box on p. 17 illustrates, on the basis of data on farmland birds in Europe and the UK, the
usefulness of indicators for monitoring change at a country level. Likewise, Chapter 3 includes a
section on the Natural Capital Index that is used to monitor trends over time in the Netherlands.
17
Relevance of agricultural
activities to widespread
species
BirdLife used population and
trend data to assess the
conservation status of all bird
species in Europe for the 19701990 period. A decline of 20%
over 20 years is defined as the
minimum for a significant
decline, and 50% over 20
years as the minimum level of
rapid decline. Results show
widespread reductions of bird
populations across many
species and countries. Most
striking has been the reduction
of once common and
widespread species, especially
in Western Europe and
primarily attributable to
agricultural intensification
(Figure 2).
Figure 2: Farmland bird declines in Europe (1970-1990) (Source: Donald
et al. (2001) based on data for 40 farmland species from BirdLife/EBCC
European Bird Database)
Indicators and widespread species
120
110
all species (139)
Index (1970=100)
100
woodland species (41)
90
80
70
farmland species (20)
Long running bird monitoring schemes for
breeding landbirds in the UK have been pivotal
in demonstrating severe declines amongst
farmland birds and their association with
intensive agriculture. Using data from the
Common Bird Census and Breeding Bird
Survey the UK BirdLife partner, the RSPB, has
developed an indicator of wild bird populations
in the UK in conjunction with BTO and DEFRA.
60
50
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
Year
Figure 3: The UK Government’s Quality of Life Indicator:
populations of common wild breeding birds. On average, the
numbers of common birds have been stable in the UK, but,
on average, woodland and farmland species have declined.
These composite indices reduce trends for several species
into a single average trend line. (Source: RSPB, BTO, DETR)
A version of this mean index, representing the
139 commoner native bird species, shows that
on average farmland birds are in sharp decline
in the period 1970-1999 (Figure 3). These
declines in farmland bird populations have
been mirrored by declines in populations of
many specialised invertebrates and plants,
mostly driven by similar changes in land use.
The methodology used in the UK is based on
an average index across all species, treating all species equally, regardless of conservation status. There is
therefore no subjectivity in the choice of species to be included or the relative importance they may have.
However, since all species are weighted equally, rare or vulnerable species are treated equally with common or
even pest species. Indicator information needs careful thought and interpretation and disaggregating the trends is
an important step to understanding the underlying problems (Gregory et al. submitted).
The adoption of wild bird indicators in the UK illustrates the potential to use birds as indicators of sustainability.
This index may also work in other data rich countries and it would be beneficial to explore this as a model.
18
Chapter 2: Indicators and Clearing-House
Mechanisms
Under the framework of the CBD, and in response to Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention, a
Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) has been developed for the global level. This CHM promotes and
facilitates technical and scientific cooperation, within and between countries, develops a global
mechanism for exchanging and integrating information on biodiversity, and develops the necessary
human and technological network. In this light, indicators and monitoring directly relate to the CHM as
a vehicle for making indicator-based information for biodiversity monitoring and reporting available as
well as for promoting coordination of data collection and data flows.
The CBD-CHM provides a section
7
on biodiversity indicators as they
are referred to in the various CBDrelated documents and meetings.
The page provides background
information, references (COP decisions,
SBSTTA
recommenda-
tions, guidance), information on
CBD-related meetings and notifications regarding biodiversity indicators.
8
The Strategy Guide (PEBLDS web
site) does not provide information
on indicators per se. It contains the
pool of documents on this issue that
result from the pan-European process in this field (e.g. ‘Biodiversity in
Europe’ conferences). It also contains a section on monitoring progress in implementing PEBLDS and
it holds the web pages on EBMI-F.
7
8
http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/indicators/default.asp
http://www.strategyguide.org
19
The
European
9
CHM
Community
contains a section on
biodiversity
indicators,
which
serves as a portal to web pages
and
on-line
documents
on
biodiversity-related indicators. It
makes a distinction between
international and national information
with
a
focus
on
Europe. The section is continuously being improved with information and links.
10
According to the CBD web site , at the
national level only 6 out of 28 Central
and Eastern European CBD Parties
have
a
CHM
web
site
(21.4%),
whereas for the category ‘Western
Europe and others’ this is 21 out of 27
(77.8%).
A
simple
‘biodiversity
11
search
for
indicators’
the
on
term
twenty
European CHM web sites shows that
for only seven of them a file including
this term is found, and that actually
only
two
countries
(Belgium
and
Finland) were found that provide a list of biodiversity indicators used at the national level. Of course,
this only gives a very basic indication of how CHMs are used to present indicator-based information
on biodiversity. It should be taken into account that for many countries other web sites provide such
information or that other terms are used (e.g. sustainable development, biological diversity).
9
http://biodiversity-chm.eea.eu.int
10
11
Source: http://www.biodiv.org/chm/stats.asp, 20 June 2002
carried out on 11 March 2002 using http://www.google.com
20
Chapter 3: The COP6 side event on indicators
and monitoring: Case studies from Europe
The side event ‘Towards implementing biodiversity indicators and monitoring: case studies from
Europe’ provided an overview of the state of affairs and it stimulated discussion on implementing
biodiversity indicators and monitoring at the national and international level in Europe.
The event was timely, because it provided a platform for summarizing Europe’s efforts in the field over
the past few years, as reported on in the previous chapters, and for linking this regional level to the
global level of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
The six presentations given at the COP6 side event provided a cross-section of current initiatives and
activities on monitoring and indicators in Europe. They covered national and continental activities, an
individual country example, the possibilities of using bird data in a site-based approach, aggregation
efforts using indices, coordination activities, as well as sectoral developments in the agricultural area.
The following sections include the summaries of the presentations given during the COP6 side event
and provide case studies on various subjects related to biodiversity indicators and monitoring in
Europe.
The CBD process and national level indicators
Dr Jan Plesník, Chair of CBD/SBSTTA, Deputy Director of the Agency for Nature Conservation and
Landscape Protection, Czech Republic
Indicators are generally used to simplify, to quantify and to communicate the state, changes and
trends in certain topics. Biodiversity indicators summarise data on complex environmental issues to
indicate overall status and trends of biological diversity.
Some troubles with indicators of biological diversity:
•
biodiversity is a broad concept (four main types or levels);
•
biodiversity science has been developing a theoretical foundation (e.g. biodiversity vs.
ecosystem functions, extinction rate);
•
basic ecological or biological terms are weekly defined (ecosystem, habitat,
sustainability, stability, tautology, species and population);
•
many institutions have been developing indicators of biological diversity in a splendid
isolation;
•
there are many potential users of the biodiversity indicators: they have quite different
views of the topic.
Indicators within the CBD should be selected or developed and applied to monitor and assess: (a) the
status and trends of biological diversity and its components; (b) direct and underlying causes of
biodiversity loss and degradation including the effects of processes and categories which have
significant adverse impacts on biological diversity; (c) the effectiveness of measures taken including
capacity needed for implementation of the CBD.
21
The CBD´s activities on indicators started at the SBSTTA-1 (Paris, 1995), while COP4 (Bratislava,
1998) approved the Programme of Work on Indicators. COP5 (Nairobi, 2000) invited Parties to
identify indicators for relevant sectors, stressed regional cooperation and capacity-building and
requested the Executive Secretary to develop a set of principles for designing national level
monitoring programmes and indicators and a key set of standard questions, as well as a list of
available and potential indicators and to report to COP6 (The Hague, 2002).
At the SBSTTA-7, held in Montreal in November 2001, the progress report on ongoing activities on
indicators in the thematic and other work programmes was discussed. They include forest biological
diversity, agricultural biological diversity, marine and coastal biological diversity, dry and sub-humid
lands, scientific assessment, Global Taxonomy Initiative, EIA and climate change. In addition,
principles for developing national-level monitoring programmes and indicators were set up, taking into
account relevance to the objectives of the CBD, management and policy relevance, relevance to
target audiences and technical features. The indicators should cover state, pressure and response
indicators. The prepared list of available and potential indicators, general and sectoral ones, covers
the ecosystem, species and genetic levels, taking in account ecosystem approach. To the list,
prepared by the CBD Secretariat (SCBD), indicators used at national level and in national reporting
were added by Parties when replying the questionnaire sent from the SCBD. In a total, 32 Parties
used 239 indicators: 17 of them have been used by more than half of the Parties. On the other hand,
no Party has a complete list of biodiversity indicators.
Recommendations from SBSTTA-7 include:
•
the Executive Secretary of CBD to report on the development of indicators in all the
thematic areas and cross-cutting issues to SBSTTA before COP7;
•
Parties to respond to the SCBD;
•
The Executive Secretary to convene a meeting of an expert group to technically review
the topic (two-level list of indicators: core indicators for thematic areas or policy
instruments and headline indicators for assessing the CBD implementation);
•
DPSIR approach;
•
Regional approach and collaborations with other key players.
For further information
UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/12: Indicators and environmental impact assessment - Designing national level
monitoring programmes and indicators:
http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-07/official/sbstta-07-12-en.pdf
National example of indicator use: Belgium
Dr Anne Franklin, Assistant to the Belgian CBD National Focal Point, Royal Belgian Institute for
Natural Sciences, Belgium
Belgium is a Federal State where environmental responsibilities are shared by the Federal
Government and the three Belgian Regions: Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia. In this context,
biodiversity monitoring programmes and inventories are mostly carried out at the regional level.
22
The Brussels Capital Region. The Brussels Institute for Management of the Environment collects
and analyses environmental data for the Brussels Capital Region. Biodiversity monitoring
programmes started in 1991 in collaboration with universities, naturalist organisations and
associations. The development and use of sustainable development indicators, including biodiversity,
is currently one of its priority research projects. Indicators are developed following the Driving forcesPressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) schema, with particular attention given to the response of
the public to the state of the environment.
The Flemish Region. Nature and biodiversity monitoring is carried out by the Flemish Institute of
Nature Conservation and the Institute for Forestry and Game Management. The Flemish Impulse
Programme Nature Development was started in 1996 as a means to stimulate research on nature
conservation in Flanders. Biological diversity indicators are one of the five themes treated within the
programme. The Flemish ‘Nature Report 2003’, currently in preparation, will use indicators as a basis
for its reporting.
The Walloon Region. The ‘Observatory of Fauna, Flora and Habitats’ coordinates the collection and
analysis of biological diversity data. The Observatory works in close collaboration with a network of
nature conservationists, scientists and officials of the Nature and Forestry Division. Forest biological
diversity monitoring is carried out through the ‘Permanent Inventory of Forest Resources’, using
criteria established within the Helsinki Process of the Ministerial Conference for the Protection of
Forests in Europe. These programmes are used as a basis for the compilation of a comprehensive
indicator-based document, the ‘State of the Walloon Environment’.
The North Sea. Research and monitoring activities related to the North Sea are carried out at the
Federal level by the Department of Marine Ecosystem Management of the Belgian Royal Institute of
Natural Sciences and the Sea Fisheries Department, in cooperation with regional institutions.
The elaboration of the report on indicators for biological diversity, as a response to the notification of
17 May 2001 from the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, provided a good
opportunity to synthesise, at the national level, information on indicators that are currently being used
in Belgium. Data from the report show that about 70% of existing indicators are used by at least one
of the regions or at the federal level and that about 30 indicators (20%) are used by all regions (e.g.
total forest area, list of flora and fauna, surface water quality, wetland area, total protected area,
existence of an ecological network).
The report has been posted on the web site of the Belgian Clearing-House Mechanism (B CHM),
together with links to different regional initiatives on biodiversity indicators. Further development of the
B CHM regarding indicators is planned, in order to enhance its role as a platform for sharing
information and promoting scientific and technical cooperation.
For further information
Belgian Report on indicators for biological diversity:
http://www.naturalsciences.be/bch-cbd/belgium/contribution/indicators/indicators.htm
National reports and regional online documents:
http://www.naturalsciences.be/bch-cbd/belgium/contribution/documents.htm
23
Building national and regional consensus for biodiversity
indicators: Important Bird Areas - a case study
Melanie Heath, Head of Science, BirdLife International
The wealth and quality of data on birds may be used to develop the thinking and lead the way in the
development and application of biodiversity indicators at local, national, regional and global levels.
How effectively we are conserving the world's birds is a means of assessing how successful we are in
conserving ecosystem functions and biodiversity as a whole.
Birds have many good indicator qualities:
•
they occur in broad range of habitats;
•
they reflect changes in other animals and plants;
•
they are responsive to change;
•
good data exists - realistic to collect;
•
they are easily understood - popular with the public.
Indeed the UK has already developed a number of indicators (150) with 15 headline indicators of
sustainable development covering environmental, social and economic factors. One of these headline
indicators is based on trends in bird populations. In Europe BirdLife is currently developing a
programme focusing on monitoring common species. Integration of data from different national
programmes across Europe will result in pan-European indices of bird trends.
Reporting on the important sites for biodiversity uses data from BirdLife International's Important Bird
Areas (IBAs). In summary:
•
IBAs are key sites for biodiversity conservation;
•
they are identified nationally, using data gathered locally, following global criteria;
•
7,000 IBAs have been identified in 130 nations (12,000 by 2004);
•
they form practical networks for conservation (decision makers need to prioritise and
IBAs are becoming enshrined in conservation legislation at national and local levels);
•
they build national consensus on conservation priorities;
•
they engage local support for sites.
Because of the way the IBA programme is structured it is possible to select a number of indicators to
report on over time that are comparable locally, nationally and internationally. Partnership and
cooperation is essential and BirdLife is cooperating with many other initiatives (e.g. OECD, EBMI-F,
EEA IWG Bio-MIN) to ensure the indicators are relevant and useful.
In Europe five core indicators have been chosen for tracking the state of IBAs, the pressures acting
upon them and responses being taken to conserve them.
State
•
Trends in species abundance at sites
•
Changes in habitat cover
24
Pressure
•
Changes in threat status
Response
•
Change in protection status
•
Change in management status
An IBA monitoring strategy is currently under development, which will:
•
be cost effective;
•
where possible be carried out locally (by Site Support Groups);
•
be coordinated at national or state level;
•
collate and synthesise data nationally, regionally and globally
Some conclusions
•
IBAs demonstrate a regional approach to indicator development and permit enhanced
comparability of indicators (SBSTTA recommendation VII/11, COP6 decision VI/7).
•
At present there is a wealth of data on birds from both governmental and nongovernmental organisations, which offer promising opportunities for developing and
implementing biodiversity indicators.
•
As far as possible the development of biodiversity indicators should be based on
objective scientific criteria and free from value judgements.
•
There is a need for harmonization and collaboration (SBSTTA recommendation VII/11,
COP6 decision VI/7). Building partnerships and cooperation is essential.
•
Non-governmental organisations have an important role to play in these partnerships on
indicator development and implementation through access to substantial datasets,
expertise and experience in developing indicators, and networks of professionals and
volunteers able to collect data cost-effectively.
•
There is the need to move from identification to testing and implementation such that we
can better assess priorities, inform decisions and review the sustainability of policies that
have an effect on biodiversity.
For further information
BirdLife IBA programme:
http://www.birdlife.net/sites/ibaprogramme.cfm
Regional cooperation: the European Biodiversity Monitoring and
Indicator Framework (EBMI-F)
Ben Delbaere, Senior Programme Coordinator, European Centre for Nature Conservation
The European Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicator Framework (EBMI-F) is a concept initiated under
the framework of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) for
promoting and facilitating collaboration in monitoring and indicator development and implementation
25
towards reporting on Europe’s biodiversity, using the objectives of the Convention on Biological
Diversity as guidance.
On this basis EBMI-F aims to enhance the possibilities for creating more synergy among present and
future biodiversity monitoring and indicator efforts at the pan-European level. The framework is
intended to stimulate the exchange of experience and to reach higher efficiency and effectiveness in
communicating the state of, and trends in, Europe’s biodiversity to the policymakers concerned.
Essentially EBMI-F will therefore be a coordinative effort, not an executing or reporting body.
th
The 4 UNECE ministerial conference ‘Environment for Europe’ (Aarhus, Denmark, 1998) formed the
initial step in developing EBMI-F. The Aarhus Declaration recognises that ‘mechanisms for
coordinated monitoring, data collection, processing and management in the European region are still
inadequate’ (UNECE, 1998). The Aarhus conference included a call for closer cooperation in the field
of biodiversity in its Ministerial Declaration.
The Council of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS, part of the
‘Environment for Europe’ process) gave ECNC and EEA the task of coordinating the development of
EBMI-F in the framework of the PEBLDS implementation. The Framework is now an integral part of
the Work Programme 2001-2005 for PEBLDS.
A project proposal for EBMI-F, drafted by seven organisations
12
in late 2001, was welcomed as a
good European example at the intergovernmental conference ‘Biodiversity in Europe’ (Budapest,
February 2002). Its implementation has gradually started and is due to speed up in 2002.
Some of the products that are coming out of EBMI-F are:
•
Dissemination activities (e-mail distribution list, project leaflet, web page);
•
Stakeholder involvement (IWG Bio-MIN, Biodiversity Expert Group as set up by the
Commission DG Environment);
•
review of ongoing monitoring activities in Europe;
•
report on indicators used;
•
background paper by EC, EEA and ECNC on biodiversity monitoring as basis for
‘Biodiversity in Europe’ intergovernmental conference and COP6 side event;
•
report on policy requirements;
•
recommendations on EBMI-F and on monitoring needs;
•
suggested EBMI-F implementation plan.
The envisaged EBMI-F benefits for stakeholders are:
12
•
increased information exchange;
•
closer fit of monitoring efforts to policy requirements;
•
joint advancement of goals and objectives;
•
better use of collected and processed information;
•
stronger – because joint – policy influence;
ECNC & EEA with BirdLife International, CONNECT, NINA (Norway), Wetlands International and UNEP-WCMC
26
•
saving duplication and money;
•
visibility of biodiversity monitoring (public relations);
•
access to others’ information;
•
gap analysis;
•
harmonisation, development of common methods and practices.
For further information
PEBLDS web site: www.strategyguide.org/ebmf.html
Indices: The example of the Natural Capital Index - potential and
problems
Ben ten Brink, Project leader and Co-researcher of Ecological Modelling, National Institute of Public
Health and the Environment, the Netherlands
The Natural Capital Index framework (NCI), developed as a contribution to the implementation of the
CBD, was designed to answer the questions ‘How much biodiversity remains?’, ‘What are the causes
of loss?’ and ‘What can we do about it?’ for policymakers and the interested public. It provides
information on the state and changes in biodiversity due to human interventions. It focuses on the
changes during industrial times, the period in which loss of biodiversity in natural and agricultural
ecosystems was accelerating rapidly.
The process of biodiversity loss generally results in a decline in the abundance (numbers of
individuals) of many species and an increase in the abundance of a few other species (see Figure 4).
Species extinction is only the last step of a long process of ecosystem degradation.
past
tomorrow
today
habitat loss
habitat loss
Figure 4: Process of biodiversity loss illustrated for the Netherlands
Globally, habitat loss is a major causal factor. The change in abundance of species in the remaining
natural areas due to various pressures is another major factor. Given these two factors the NCI
framework has defined the natural capital as the product of the size of the remaining area (ecosystem
quantity) and its quality.
NCI = ecosystem quantity (%) × ecosystem quality (%).
Ecosystem quantity is defined as the size of the ecosystem (% area of country or region). Ecosystem
quality is defined as the ratio between the current and a baseline state (% of baseline). A postulated
27
baseline, set in pre-industrial times, or a ‘low-impact baseline’ has been proposed as the baseline for
natural ecosystems according to the recommendations of the first CBD Liaison Group on Biodiversity
Indicators. Similarly, agricultural ecosystems are compared with the pre-industrial (traditional)
agricultural state.
The Natural Capital Index (NCI) ranges from 0 to 100%. For example, if 50% of a country still consists
of natural area and the quality of this area has been decreased to 50%, than the remaining NCI natural
area
is 25%. This means an average abundance of the characteristic species of roughly 25% of the
baseline state.
Several initial exercises have been carried out on a variety of spatial scales: globally in UNEP’s
Global Environmental Outlook, continentally in Europe (pressure-based), and nationally in the
Netherlands. Some case studies in developing countries are in preparation.
NCI has high potential as a practical tool for policymakers to manage natural resources at the national
and international level. It is universally applicable in any country and to all terrestrial ecosystems,
agricultural ecosystems, inland waters and marine ecosystems, and delivers comparable information.
It answers key political questions about ecosystem performance, causes of loss and effectiveness of
measures. It can be used in policy scenarios, and it can be gradually established, depending on the
available capacity, data and resources.
Often, baseline and current data on quality variables are insufficiently available in the short term. As a
substitute, a pressure-based NCI could be useful, assuming that pressures are inversely related to
quality. Data on pressures are often more widely available. Further, choosing baselines is a difficult
but also indispensable step in assessing ecosystem quality. Baselines are primarily a matter of
choice, taking into account the need to identify practical reference points in time.
Indicator-based reporting by EEA
Dr Tor-Björn Larsson, Project manager forest & biodiversity, European Environment Agency
One of the recurring themes in recent EU strategic policy discussions is that policies and strategies
should go hand-in-hand with indicators for measuring progress and reporting. The European
Environment Agency (EEA) supports environmental policy by developing targeted sets of indicators
and assessments, for example in the series of ‘Environmental signals’ reports. Presently EEA is
aiming at developing a consistent core set of indicators for major sectors (energy, agriculture, forestry,
tourism etc.) and issues (biodiversity, water, terrestrial environment, air and climate change). The
objective is to cover the most important aspects of the socio-economic and environment framework
(Driving forces, Pressures, State of the environment, Impacts, and societal Responses – the so-called
DPSIR assessment framework), including eco-efficiency indicators.
The biodiversity indicators should on a general level demonstrate the change of biodiversity in relation
th
to the target presented in the EU 6 Environmental Action Programme 2001-10 ‘to protect and where
necessary restore the structure and functioning of natural systems and halt the loss of biodiversity
both in the European Union and on global scale’. More specifically the biodiversity indicators will aim
to address policy questions like:
28
•
What is the threat status and what are the trends of Europe’s biodiversity (wild flora and
fauna and their natural habitats)?
•
Are measures taken to conserve or restore biodiversity efficient?
•
Are biodiversity conservation measures integrated into other sectors of society?
•
Is use of biodiversity components carried out in a sustainable way?
•
Are financial means available for biodiversity conservation and how are they spent?
•
Are pressures on biodiversity or causes for biodiversity loss well identified?
•
What is the status of awareness and participation of the public and policy-makers?
The European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity, established by EEA, supports the
development of the core set of biodiversity indicators. The following ecosystems will be covered:
forest, freshwater, coastal, marine, mountain, urban and agro-ecosystems. Of course the indicators
will take note of existing information and initiatives, nationally and on the European level (e.g. with
respect to forest the current improvement of indicators in the framework of the Ministerial Conferences
for Protection of Forest in Europe). Furthermore the EU supports several relevant research projects
through its RTD Framework Programme. Datasets of the ETC/NPB and its network as well as of other
organisations will be utilised.
As an example of current biodiversity-related indicators and datasets used by EEA the table below
outlines the Environmental signals 2002 report assessment of forests (EEA, 2002a):
Policy issue
Indicator
Assessment
Influence of land use policy
Total forest area and “naturalness”
!
Sustainability of forestry
Annual fellings and annual increment of growing stock
☺
Reducing impacts of forestry
Origin and impacts of tree planting material
☺
Reducing pollution stress, and other Forest condition
impacts, on forest ecosystems
#
Conserving biodiversity
Threatened forest species and protection of forest habitats !
and species
Conserving biodiversity
Level of protection of forests
☺
Sectoral integration: OECD agri-biodiversity indicators
Kevin Parris (presented by Dr Philip Bagnoli, Principle Administrator, Global and Structural Policies
Division), Environment Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
The OECD is currently engaged in developing a set of Agri-Biodiversity Indicators (ABIs) as:
•
a source of information on the status and trends in biodiversity related to agriculture; and
•
a tool in policy monitoring, evaluation and in predictive scenarios, to improve policy
effectiveness in promoting sustainable agriculture and management of natural
resources.
An OECD Expert Meeting was held in Zürich, Switzerland (November 2001) to further develop ABIs,
as a contribution to OECD work to establish a set of Agri-Environmental Indicators. The Expert
Meeting was attended by OECD Member countries and involved many international organisations
(e.g. Birdlife International, FAO, ECNC, IUCN, World Bank).
29
The key recommendations from the OECD Experts were as follows:
i)
Establish agri-biodiversity indicators within a common, flexible and transparent framework that
provides a hierarchy with multiple spatial and temporal scales in which to identify, structure,
combine and aggregate indicators. The framework developed by OECD enables countries to
identify the strengths and weaknesses in their existing compliment of indicators and takes into
account an agro-ecosystem’s: diversity of elements (e.g. flora and fauna); complexity of
interactions (i.e. social, economic and environmental) and the interaction with other
ecosystems (e.g. forests). It also recognises the hierarchical structure within the agroecosystem, including: production species (crops and livestock) and production support
species (e.g. pollinators); habitat types, their structure and management; and wild species
use of agro-ecosystems.
ii)
Countries should provide on a regular basis a set of agri-biodiversity indicators that monitor
the effects and performance of agriculture on biodiversity (i.e. at the genetic, species and
ecosystems levels) and which are linked to actions by farmers, the food chain and
governments.
iii)
Integrate the agri-biodiversity indicators into policy monitoring, evaluation and predictive
scenarios to improve policy effectiveness in promoting sustainable agriculture.
iv)
Invest in the scientific understanding and research of the linkages between the genetic,
species and ecosystems levels related to agri-biodiversity, and the interactions between
farming and biodiversity. This research should help to further develop the associated basic
data, including for those areas poorly covered, notably indicators of environmental services,
such as soil biodiversity, pollinators and natural pest control.
v)
Continue to engage a wide range of stakeholders in developing agri-biodiversity indicators,
including farmers and food industry representatives, environmental groups, government
scientists and policy advisors, by drawing on and sharing their perspectives, expertise and
information sources related to monitoring agri-biodiversity for policy purposes.
vi)
Contribute and cooperate with other international initiatives related to developing agribiodiversity indicators, especially those under the Convention on Biological Diversity and in
FAO, in order to promote global consistency of indicators and also to share the OECD work
with non-Member countries.
OECD shows that despite some improvements in the environmental impacts of agriculture, levels of
environmental damage caused by farming remain high in many OECD countries.
These are some of the conclusions of a new OECD publication, ‘Environmental Indicators for
Agriculture – Volume 3: Methods and Results’ (OECD, 2001), the first international study to provide a
comprehensive picture of the state and trends of environmental conditions in agriculture across OECD
Member countries from the mid-1980s to the present day. Its conclusions are largely based on a set
of indicators that use a common methodology to allow cross-country comparison of agrienvironmental performance.
For further information
OECD web site including all 33 papers presented at the meeting, web links and country reports, and the
Summary and Recommendations: www1.oecd.org/agr/biodiversity/
Kevin Parris, OECD: [email protected]
30
Outcome of the side event
The discussion session, chaired by Dr Jan Plesník, provided the opportunity for feedback from the
circa 80 participants that attended the side event. Some of the important issues raised include:
•
the national level indicators listed in Table 1 of this publication cannot be used for
comparing countries;
•
the use of indices or headline indicators to present the status of biodiversity value in one
figure must be accompanied with careful warnings and with a set of complementary
indicators that underpin and refine the complex message;
•
the current lack of data or scientifically sound indicators should not be masked but may
well be pronounced to policymakers if they ask about the status of biodiversity. This
should prevent misunderstandings when indicators are used that have obvious
shortcomings (see Table 1 for examples);
•
while using the best available data and indicators, simultaneous further scientific
development and testing is required;
•
indicators should always be linked to monitoring programmes that are based on clear
objectives or policy requirements. A logical framework should be used when linking
indicators and monitoring to policies and pressures.
Based on the side event’s presentations, the comments from the participants, and the
recommendations from Europe to COP6 as formulated by the intergovernmental conference
‘Biodiversity in Europe’ as a European preparatory meeting for the COP6, the following
recommendations have been formulated by the event’s panel of speakers:
1. in response to COP Decision V/7 and to SBSTTA recommendation 7/11: to increase regional
cooperation and greater synergy between national, European and global indicator developments
so as to enhance comparability and efficiency of monitoring programmes;
2. in response to COP Decision V/7: to globally promote the implementation of the European
Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicator Framework (EBMI-F) as an example of a regional
coordinating effort and forum towards reaching the goal of greater synergy in monitoring and
indicator development;
3. in support of COP Decision V/14: to provide support for greater CHM coordination worldwide and
to stimulate the use of CHMs for exchanging indicator-based monitoring information and on-line
reporting. In this light, to promote the pan-European CHM initiative and coordination as a regional
example that aims at enhancing efficiency and reducing overlapping activities, including using the
cooperation to enhance coordination of work on indicators and monitoring.
4. for all Parties to the CBD: to begin implementing a common selection of indicators so as to report
to COP7 on the feasibility of using them for regional and global implementation and aggregation.
These recommendations, as well as the ones from the Budapest conference ‘Biodiversity in Europe’
(February 2002), were communicated by the Slovak and Hungarian delegates respectively to the
plenary session on ‘Identification, monitoring, indicators and assessments’ at COP6 on 11 April 2002.
The final outcome of COP6 as regards indicators and monitoring is laid down in Decision VI/7 (Box 3).
The key points of the side event that have been incorporated in this decision concern Paragraph 4d
on regional approaches.
31
Box 3: COP6 decision VI/7: Identification, monitoring, indicators and assessments
B.
Designing national-level monitoring programmes and indicators
The Conference of the Parties
1
Requests the Executive Secretary to report on the development and use of indicators in all the
thematic areas and cross cutting issues to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and
Technological Advice prior to the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties;
2
Urges Parties that have yet not done so to respond to the questionnaire on the subject of indicators
that was sent by the Executive Secretary in May 2001 so as to enable the Executive Secretary to
update the analysis;
3
Requests the Executive Secretary to convene a meeting of an expert group that is broadly
representative of experts from both United Nations and biogeographical regions. The group should
further develop the three annexes to the note of the Executive Secretary on ongoing work on
indicators(11) on:
4
a
Principles for developing national-level monitoring and indicators;
b
A set of standard questions for developing national–level indicators; and
c
A list of available and potential indicators based on a conceptual framework that has
qualitative and quantitative approach:
Requests the Executive Secretary to report to a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific,
Technical and Technological Advice prior to the seventh meeting of the Conference of Parties. In
doing so, the Executive Secretary should take into account the specific comments of delegates in the
seventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice and the
following guidance:
a
Give particular attention to the note by the Executive Secretary on recommendations for a
core set of indicators on biological diversity prepared for the third meeting of the Subsidiary
Body(12) and background paper prepared for the same meeting by the liaison group on
indicators of biological diversity(13) and subsequent related papers;
b
Consider development and segregation of the key questions contained in annex II to the note
by the Executive Secretary on ongoing work on indicators according to the three levels of
biodiversity, and reorder them to correspond to Articles of the convention as far as possible,
and give attention to the use of early warning indicators;
c
Consider developing and organizing the list of indicators for each thematic area grouped as
driver, pressure, state, impact and response to pressure on biodiversity;
d
Regional approaches to indicator development should be promoted in order to assess the
status and trends of biodiversity. For the development of the list of indicators, there is a need
for harmonization and collaboration with regional and international initiatives, including the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Commission on Sustainable
Development, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the pan-European processes (the PanEuropean Biological and Landscape Strategy and the Ministerial Conference on the
Protection of Forests in Europe), the Montreal process on criteria and indicators for the
conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests, the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the United Nations Forum on Forests;
e
Note that the list of indicators should provide a resource that will support users in identifying
the most appropriate indicators for their needs, and to access experience in other countries,
regions and sectors, and that indicators must be policy and management relevant
32
Chapter 4: Further steps towards implementing
indicators and monitoring
The information on the current progress in biodiversity indicator development and monitoring
programmes that was provided at the side event and in this publication provides a good overview and
reference on activities in this field. It shows that many things are happening and that the indicator
debate is of increasing importance in both policy circles and the scientific community. The next few
years will therefore most likely witness strong progress and a possible breakthrough as regards
indicator-based biodiversity monitoring in support of policy assessment and feedback.
In concrete terms the COP6 Decision VI/7 calls for action in preparation for SBSTTA-9 in 2003 and
COP7, to be held in Malaysia in 2004. It urges Parties to respond to a questionnaire by the CBD
Executive Secretary. It also requests the convening of an expert meeting to further develop principles
and standard questions for developing national-level indicators, and to list available and potential
indicators. Hence, on the global level the process continues via the Parties’ input, an expert group,
SBSTTA-8 and 9 and COP7, leading to indicators being covered as one of the major issues at COP8
in 2006.
At the regional level, supported by Paragraph 4d of COP6 Decision VI/7, regional indicator
development is promoted, paying special attention to harmonisation and collaboration with regional
and international initiatives. In Europe the work programme of PEBLDS provides a forum for such
cooperation via the European Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicator Framework (EBMI-F), which is
taking shape now. Closely linked to this framework, EEA is starting an Informal Working Group on
Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicators (IWG Bio-MIN), which will support EEA’s development of a core
set of biodiversity indicators and a monitoring network. Both platforms will bring together the key
stakeholders in Europe and will advance coordinated development of indicators and monitoring in
support of European and global policies.
33
References
Chairman’s conclusions of the first intergovernmental conference ‘Biodiversity in Europe’ (Riga, 2000)
(http://www.strategyguide.org/rigaconc.html)
COP Decision V/7: Identification, monitoring and assessment, and indicators
(http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.asp?lg=0&m=cop-05&d=07)
COP Decision V/14: Scientific and technical cooperation and the clearing-house mechanism (Article
18) (http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.asp?lg=0&m=cop-05&d=14)
Council of Europe, UNEP & ECNC (1996) The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity
Strategy : A vision for Europe’s natural heritage. – Tilburg, European Centre for Nature Conservation.
(http://www.strategyguide.org/fulltext.html)
Delbaere, B.C.W. (ed.) (1998) Facts & figures on Europe’s biodiversity – State and trends 1998-1999.
– Tilburg, European Centre for Nature Conservation
Donald, P.F., R.E. Green & M.F. Heath (2001) Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe's
farmland bird populations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 268: 25-29
Drucker, G. & T. Damarad (2000) Integrating Biodiversity in Europe: A Review of Convention on
Biological Diversity General Measures and Sectoral Policies – Tilburg, European Centre for Nature
Conservation
EEA (1998) Europe’s Environment: the Second Assessment. – Luxembourg, Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities & Oxford, Elsevier Science, Ltd.
EEA (2000) Environmental Signals 2001: European Environment Agency regular indicator report –
Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
(http://reports.eea.eu.int/signals-2001/index_html)
EEA (2002a) Environmental Signals 2002: Benchmarking the millennium. Environmental assessment
report no. 9 – Copenhagen, European Environment Agency
(http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_assessment_report_2002_9/en)
EEA (2002b) An inventory of biodiversity indicators in Europe. Final report, prepared by B. Delbaere,
European Centre for Nature Conservation – Copenhagen, European Environment Agency
(http://www.eea.eu.int)
European Commission (1998a) First report on the implementation of the Convention on Biological
Diversity by the European Community. – Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/environment/env_theme/biodiversity/ec_policy/txt05.pdf)
European Commission (1998b) Communication of the European Commission to the Council and to
the Parliament on a European Community Biodiversity Strategy. – Brussels
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/docum/9842en.pdf)
34
European Commission (2000) Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns into the
Common Agricultural Policy. COM(2000) 20 final – Brussels
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/com20/20_en.pdf)
European Commission (2001a) Biodiversity Action Plans in the areas of Conservation of Natural
Resources, Agriculture, Fisheries, and Development and Economic Co-operation. – Brussels,
Commission of the European Communities. (http://biodiversitychm.eea.eu.int/convention/cbd_ec/strategy/BAP_html)
European Commission (2001b) Environment 2010: Our future, Our choice – the Sixth Environment
Action Programme. COM(2001) 31 final – Brussels, Commission of the European Communities
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/newprg/index.htm)
European Commission (2001c) A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy
for Sustainable Development. COM(2001)264 final – Brussels, Commission of the European
Communities (http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0264en01.pdf)
European Commission (2002) Indicators, monitoring and clearing-house mechanisms: tools for
policymaking and awareness raising. Background paper prepared by the European Environment
nd
Agency and the European Centre for Nature Conservation for the 2 intergovernmental conference
‘Biodiversity in Europe’, Budapest, February 2002. STRA-CO (2002) 44
(http://www.strategyguide.org/docs/budapest/STRA-CO (2002) 44.doc)
Gregory, R.D., D. Noble, R. Field, J. Marchant, M. Raven & D.W. Gibbons (submitted) Using Birds as
Indicators of Biodiversity. Proceedings of the EBCC Conference, Hungary 2001
OECD (2001) Environmental Indicators for Agriculture: Volume 3 Methods and results – Paris,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OECD (2002) OECD expert meeting on agri–biodiversity indicators: summary and recommendations.
5-8 November 2001, Zürich, Switzerland – Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development
Ortuño, C. (2001) Bern Convention monitoring mechanisms. Bern Convention Standing Committee
document T-PVS (2001) 07 – Strasbourg, Council of Europe
(http://www.nature.coe.int/CP21/tpvs07e.doc)
SBSTTA Recommendation III/9: Recommendations for a core set of indicators of biological diversity.
UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/3/9 and inf. 13, inf. 14 (http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta03/official/sbstta-03-09-en.pdf)
SBSTTA Recommendation V/12: Development of indicators of biological diversity.
UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/5/12 (http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-05/official/sbstta-05-12en.doc)
SBSTTA Recommendation VII/12: Indicators and Environmental Impact Assessment: Designing
national-level monitoring and indicator programmes. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/12
(http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-07/official/sbstta-07-12-en.pdf)
35
SCBD (2001) Global Biodiversity Outlook. – Montreal, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity
Ten Brink, B. (2000) Biodiversity indicators for the OECD Environmental Outlook and Strategy : A
feasibility study. – Bilthoven, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment
(http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/402001014.pdf)
Tucker, G.M. & M.F. Heath (1994) Birds in Europe: Their Conservation Status. BirdLife Conservation
Series No. 3. – Cambridge, BirdLife International
UNDP/UNEP/World Bank/WRI (2000) World Resources 2000-2001: People and ecosystems - the
fraying web of life. – Washington, D.C., World Resources Institute. (http://www.wri.org/wr2000/)
UNECE (1998) Declaration by the Ministers of Environment of the region of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) (ECE/CEP/56, Aarhus Declaration, Fourth Ministerial
Conference Environment for Europe, Århus, Denmark, 23 - 25 June 1998) – Geneva, United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (http://www.mem.dk/aarhus-conference/declarationf.htm)
UNEP (1999) Global Environmental Outlook: UNEP's Millennium report on the environment. –
London, Earthscan; United Nations Environment Programme
Van Swaay, C. & M. Warren (1999) Red Data Book of European Butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature
and Environment, No. 99 – Strasbourg, Council of Europe
36
Annex 1: Meeting agenda
Moving towards implementing biodiversity indicators and
monitoring: case studies from Europe.
Side event at CBD/COP6
10 April 2002, The Hague, The Netherlands
13.15: Opening of the meeting
Catherine Cruveillier-Cassagne, Deputy Executive Director & Head of Programme and
Strategy Unit, European Centre for Nature Conservation
Dr Jan Plesník, Chair of CBD/SBSTTA & Deputy Director
Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection, Czech Republic
Review of current status of indicators at CBD level
Dr Jan Plesník, Chair of CBD/SBSTTA & Deputy Director
Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection, Czech Republic
National example of indicator use: Belgium
Dr Anne Franklin, Assistant to the Belgian CBD/NFP
Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences, Belgium
Building national and regional consensus for biodiversity indicators: Important Bird
Areas – a case study
Melanie Heath, Head of Science
BirdLife International
Regional cooperation: the European Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicator Framework
(EBMI-F)
Ben Delbaere, Senior Programme Coordinator Biodiversity & Landscape
European Centre for Nature Conservation
Indices: The example of the Natural Capital Index - potential and problems
Ben ten Brink, Project leader and Co-researcher of Ecological Modelling
National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, The Netherlands
Indicator-based reporting by the EEA
Dr Tor-Björn Larsson, Project manager forest & biodiversity
European Environment Agency
Sectoral integration: OECD agri-biodiversity indicators
Dr Philip Bagnoli, Principle Administrator, Global and Structural Policies Division, Environment
Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
14.00: Discussion, chaired by Dr Jan Plesník
14.45: Closing
37
Annex 2: Contact details of speakers
Dr Philip Bagnoli
Principle Administrator
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD)
2, rue André Pascal
75775 Paris Cedex 16
France
Tel.: +33-1-45249600
Fax: +33-1-45249671
E-mail: [email protected]
WWW: www.oecd.org/env/eap
Mrs Melanie Heath
Head of Science
BirdLife International
Wellbrook Court
Girton Road
CB3 0NA Cambridge
United Kingdom
Tel.: +44-1223-277318
Fax: +44-1223-277200
E-mail: [email protected]
WWW: www.birdlife.net
Mrs Catherine Cruveillier-Cassagne
Deputy Director/Head Programme & Strategy
Unit
European Centre for Nature Conservation
(ECNC)
PO Box 1352
5004 BJ Tilburg
the Netherlands
Tel.: +31-13-4663240
Fax: +31-13-4663250
E-mail: [email protected]
WWW: www.ecnc.nl
Dr Tor-Björn Larsson
Project Manager Forest & Biodiversity
European Environment Agency (EEA)
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel.: +45-33-367100
Fax: +45-33-367199
E-mail: [email protected]
WWW: www.eea.eu.int
Dr Jan Plesník
Deputy Director
Agency for Nature Conservation and
Landscape Protection (AOPK)
PO Box 85
130 23 Prague 3
Czech Republic
Tel.: +420-2-6970013
Fax: +420-26970012
E-mail: [email protected]
WWW: www.nature.cz
Mr Ben Delbaere
Senior Programme Coordinator - Biodiversity
& Landscape
European Centre for Nature Conservation
(ECNC)
PO Box 1352
5004 BJ Tilburg
the Netherlands
Tel.: +31-13-4663240
Fax: +31-13-4663250
E-mail: [email protected]
WWW: www.ecnc.nl
Mr Ben ten Brink
National Institute of Public Health and the
Environment (RIVM)
PO Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
the Netherlands
Tel.: +31-30-2742035
Fax: +31-30-2744405
E-mail: [email protected]
WWW: www.rivm.nl
Dr Anne Franklin
Assistant to the CBD/NFP
Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences
(RBINS)
Vautierstraat 29
1000 Brussels
Belgium
Tel.: +32-2-6274587
Fax: +32-2-6464433
E-mail: [email protected]
WWW: www.naturalsciences.be
38
Annex 3: Acronyms and abbreviations
ABI
AOPK
BTO
CBD
CHM
CONNECT
COP
DEFRA
DG
DPSIR
EBCC
EBMI-F
EC
EC
ECNC
EEA
EIA
ETC/NPB
EU
EUROSTAT
FAO
GIWA
GTI
IBA
ICCD
ICES
IPGRI
IUCN
IWG Bio-MIN
MCPFE
NBI
NCI
NGO
NINA
OECD
PEBLDS
RBINS
RIVM
RSPB
RTD
SBSTTA
SCBD
SPEC
TBFRA
UK
UN
UNDP
UNECE
UNEP
UNEP-WCMC
WRI
Agri-Biodiversity Indicator
Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection (Czech Republic)
British Trust for Ornithology (UK)
Convention on Biological Diversity
Clearing-House Mechanism
European Conservation Institutes Research Network
Conference of the Parties
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (UK)
Directorate-General
Driving Force – Pressure – State – Impact – Response (monitoring framework EEA)
European Bird Census Council
European Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicator Framework
European Commission
European Community
European Centre for Nature Conservation
European Environment Agency
Environmental Impact Assessment
European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity (EEA)
European Union
European Statistical Office
Food and Agriculture Organisation (UN)
Global International Waters Assessment
Global Taxonomy Initiative
Important Bird Area (by BirdLife International)
International Convention to Combat Desertification
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
The World Conservation Union
International Working Group on Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicators
Ministerial Conferences for the Protection of Forests in Europe
National Biodiversity Index
Natural Capital Index
Non-Governmental Organisation
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences
National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (the Netherlands)
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (UK)
Research and technological Development
Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (under CBD)
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Species of European Conservation Concern
Temperate and Boreal Forest Resources Assessment
United Kingdom
United Nations
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
United Nations Environment Programme
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre
World Resources Institute
39
european centre for nature conservation
ECNC Publication technical report series
ISBN 90-76762-11-2
Biodiversity indicators and monitoring
Moving towards implementation
Author: Ben Delbaere